--- Steve Petermann <steve@spetermann.org> wrote:
> Dr. Nelson wrote:
> > I did anything but merely pass off your questions,
> but
> > tried (apparently not to your satisfaction) to
> address
> > all of them.
>
> Okay. Here goes: In what follows I'm assuming that
> there is some *concrete*
> salvic benefit incurred by the incarnation of the
> second person of the
> trinity, life, death and resurrection of Jesus here
> on earth. I'm also
> assuming that it would rather arrogant of us to
> assume that the salvation of
> all ET's everywhere were dependent on what happened
> on this planet. So, if
> there turns out to be ET's out there:
>
> 1) Is another incarnation, life, death and
> resurrection of the second person
> of the trinity necessary for their salvation? Or at
> least an incarnation at
> some point in the planet's history?

I think the simple answer is it depends, and I don't
know how we can speculate about it. The point I tried
to get across is that the actions, life, death and
resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth were for *human
beings*. I do not know what biological, cultural,
etc. factors would go into making *different*
redemptive actions for the second person of the
Trinity in union with the nature of some other ET.

I doubt as an initial matter, if there were more than
one Incarnation that every Incarnation would be a
carbon copy passion play. What happens would depend
on those creature's nature and what God wants for
them.

Why should there be? I would caveat that some
versions of christianity posit a limited scope, e.g.,
limited atonement, for christ's action -- now that
does not apply to world, country, globe or galaxy, but
to the elect.

I am not sure what you mean by salvific scheme? I
think that Jesus of Nazareth may be able to speak to
ETs who still have had their own experience with the
second person of the Trinity (or as Howard might say
The Sacred). They, likewise, may have good news to
share with us, too.

I think it odd to say that salvation is geographically
delimited since even Jesus of Nazareth is not about
geographic limitation -- quite the reverse. And as I
pointed out before, to the extent some christians talk
about exclusivity it is neither ethnic nor geographic.

> 3) If I move from one planet to another, am I
> covered by the salvic scheme
> of my previous planet or the new one?

Ah, hah! Here I think we are beginning to get to the
root of the problem!?

One's understanding of atonement influences what the
answer to this is. First, like so many things varies
significantly among and within christian traditions.
Second, if you are looking at it from a penal
substitution perspective, which your question implies
(and I wouldnt necessarily look at it that way), then
the answer is you're covered by the one from your
biological planet of origin. Although, I would not
view it in those terms. Although God is God no matter
where you go. To the extent that God reveals Himself
to ETs consonant with their nature, one might suppose
that it would be most "natural" to understand
revelation vis-a-vis made to your planet of origin,
but I see no reason why there might not be good news
to share as I have said before.

> 4) If there can be different salvic schemes on
> different planets does that
> mean that there can be different salvic schemes on
> this planet as well, say
> by another religion in another part of the world or
> can there only be one
> salvic scheme per planet?

Well, I dont think christianity has one understanding
of God's salvific scheme for this planet.

I think the broad christian sentiment is God is most
fully revealed in Jesus of Nazareth. That does not
make claims, necessarily, about other relligions.
Theologies differ widely. For the purposes of this
list, I will stay away from getting any more explicit
on this question.

> 5) Assuming that ET's may be very different than us,
> is salvation species
> specific? In other words if there are more than one
> sentient species on a
> planet, does the second person of the trinity have
> to incarnate in each?

Well, I have addressed this already. The first
question, I presume would be do they sin -- however
you want to define that. If not, if they have a
relationship with God that is not broken, an
incarnation would seem unnecessary.

Where there is sin, in some way, God would reveal
Himself to them and join His nature to theirs, which
is why I suggested that following the example for your
"species", as you use the term, might be appropriate,
although not necessarily exclusive.

As I discussed above, whether an incarnation is
necessary and what happens vis-a-vis that incarnation,
I don't pretend to guess, because it will be
particular to the nature of each "species". (Not to
eliminate the possibility that where context is
appropriate it might not be part of God's intent to
have one "species" evangelize another.)

>
> That should be enough. I know it sounds like I'm
> just trying to be
> obnoxious but that's not it at all. It was around
> this very issue that I
> came to reject the "concrete" idea of the Christ.
> That does not, however,
> mean I reject the symbol of the incarnation, cross
> and resurrection. Can
> Christianity survive without a concrete Christ?
>
> Steve Petermann

To the contrary, I think the concrete Jesus of
Nazareth is the greatest hope (and promise) that God
will join His nature with ETs who are in need of
redeemption, too...